Hate to say it but Barry is a can't miss for the Hall of Fame

[boots]

I was looking at the career numbers and I was surprised to see that Barry Bonds COULD hit the 3000-hit mark this season. If he makes it and breaks Aaron's home run mark, it will be hard to deny him a place in Cooperstown. Your thoughts.

 

[Mark McGwire]

It's a joke if I'm not in.

 

[Freelance Hack]

There are two members of the 3,000 hit club that will never, ever see the Hall. One is Rafael Palmeiro. The other is Pete Rose.

If Bonds reaches 3,000 and makes the hall, then Cooperstown better let those two in first.

 

[boots]

Raffy will get in. Pete is in if he comes truely clean.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

It won't happen this season. Bonds has 2,841 hits, leaving him 159 short of 3,000. He hasn't had that many hits in a season since 1998. Plus, he hasn't played in more than 153 games since then either, and because he walks so much, it's harder for him to average even one hit per game.

If Pete Rose hadn't been banned, he might be in the Hall right now. It's not the writers who are keeping him out. And unlike McGwire, Bonds had a good shot at the Hall before the bulked-up late-90s explosion. I think Bonds makes it eventually.

 

[John D. Villarreal]

Raffy will get in. Pete is in if he comes truly clean.

bumped on to answer some PM's I did not have time to get b4.

Hmm...maybe. Great sig line BTW.

1.) Barry WILL get in

2.) I think Mark will eventually get in (once ppl actually learn about this issue - honestly I think the tide has already turned significantly here)

3.) Pete should already be in

4.) Raffy would get in if Mark & Barry get in - but remember Raffy lovers he is the only one to have failed a steroid test.

If it were me they would all get in - it is the MLB HOF after all and not election for Pope or something. They are all great players that entertained many fans for decades.

 

[Jesus_Muscatel]

Keep. Rose. Out. Forever.

 

[heyabbott]

Bonds gets in and no one shows up for the induction ceremony.

 

[andyouare?]

The sad part is - and this might be debatable - if Bonds retired before '98, he might have been a good bet for the HOF. He was considered the best all around player in the game by many, won multiple awards and highly respected -- if not liked.

 

[John D. Villarreal]

Keep. Rose. Out. Forever.

Nice tag lines JM - BOTH of them!

 

[cranberry]

I don't think this was ever an issue. With or without PEDs, Bonds has been the best hitter of his generation.

 

[John D. Villarreal]

I don't think this was ever an issue. With or without PEDs, Bonds has been the best hitter of his generation.

Exactly Cranberry - but this whole PED "issue" has holes in it as previously discussed in the McGwire thread

 

[outofplace]

Rose is a completely separate issue from Bonds. There are good reasons that baseball has no tolerance for betting on the games. Fans for the most part have shown that they don't care about the performance enhancing drugs. I think the reaction would be very different if it came out that a player, players or a manager had actually thrown a game due to gambling interests.

I'm not saying the use of performance enhancers should be ignored. Just that it is not quite the same level of threat to the game's integrity as gambling.

There is also a very big difference between Bonds and McGwire and Palmiero. Bonds is a much better player than either of them. It's not even close. And it's not just his skills as a hitter.

Bonds was a better defensive player in his prime. He was a also a difference-maker on the bases, something neither of those guys could ever provide.

Take performance enhancers out of the equation and McGwire and Palmiero probably get in, maybe not first-ballot though. If not for his attitude and BALCO, the only think that would keep Bonds from being unanimous his first year is those "nobody should be unanimous" jackasses that refused to vote for Ripken and Gwynn this year.

 

[SCEditor]

Before McGwire's testimony, he was probably a lock for the HOF. Now he got, what, 25 percent of the vote? Something like that? I don't think McGwire, Bonds or Palmeiro get in unless the veterans committee puts them in. I don't see essentially 50 percent of the sportswriters who vote changing their opinion on steroids and letting any of them in. And I don't blame them. Sure, the HOF is not an election for the pope. But there's a stipulation for integrity (look up the word in the dictionary John) and that's going to keep all three and anybody else linked the steroids scandal out of the HOF.

 

[John D. Villarreal]

Rose is a completely separate issue from Bonds. There are good reasons that baseball has no tolerance for betting on the games. Fans for the most part have shown that they don't care about the performance enhancing drugs. I think the reaction would be very different if it came out that a player, players or a manager had actually thrown a game due to gambling interests.

I'm not saying the use of performance enhancers should be ignored. Just that it is not quite the same level of threat to the game's integrity as gambling.

There is also a very big difference between Bonds and McGwire and Palmiero. Bonds is a much better player than either of them. It's not even close. And it's not just his skills as a hitter.

Bonds was a better defensive player in his prime. He was a also a difference-maker on the bases, something neither of those guys could ever provide.

Take performance enhancers out of the equation and McGwire and Palmiero probably get in, maybe not first-ballot though. If not for his attitude and BALCO, the only think that would keep Bonds from being unanimous his first year is those "nobody should be unanimous" jackasses that refused to vote for Ripken and Gwynn this year.

An almost perfect post OOP

Props to that - not much to add or critique.

I still think Pete should be in - yeah betting is bad, but you still can't take away all those hits & wins - oh well different topic

 

[SCEditor]

Take performance enhancers out of the equation ...

Seventy-five percent of the voters are not going to take performance enhancers out of the equation. And that's why none of the three will get voted in. If the veteran's committee votes them in, then they'll get in. But there is no way 75 percent of the voters will agree to led them in because of performance enhancers. Should they be in? My opinion, no. Your opinion? Yes. I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing if they should be in or not. I just believe they won't get voted in.

 

[John D. Villarreal]

Before McGwire's testimony, he was probably a lock for the HOF. Now he got, what, 25 percent of the vote? Something like that? I don't think McGwire, Bonds or Palmeiro get in unless the veterans committee puts them in. I don't see essentially 50 percent of the sportswriters who vote changing their opinion on steroids and letting any of them in. And I don't blame them. Sure, the HOF is not an election for the pope. But there's a stipulation for integrity (look up the word in the dictionary John) and that's going to keep all three and anybody else linked the steroids scandal out of the HOF.

Then you and they have learned nothing in the last month & few years.

Moreover, you are saying that most HOF voters are either too stupid to learn about a complex subject or too prideful & stubborn to change their votes/minds in the face of new evidence.

Let's review a few things

1.) Drugs have been in MLB for a LOOOONG time and are STILL there - duh. There is no one small "scandal" or 4-7 year steroid "era" - that is the funniest thing I have heard all day.

2.) How many players in the end do you think will be "linked" to your little scandal bc at last count we are well over 120 & the numbers will rise. Ban them all?

3.) I think people are smart and the thinking is evolving on this as more info comes out.

Look, I can't go point for point on this as I have done it so many times on this board already.

Check OOP's post above for short answer

 

[cranberry]

Take performance enhancers out of the equation ...

Seventy-five percent of the voters are not going to take performance enhancers out of the equation. And that's why none of the three will get voted in. If the veteran's committee votes them in, then they'll get in. But there is no way 75 percent of the voters will agree to led them in because of performance enhancers. Should they be in? My opinion, no. Your opinion? Yes. I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing if they should be in or not. I just believe they won't get voted in.

It's silly to make projections based on McGwire's initial vote. Most of the voters don't see the issue as black-and-white as you apparently see it. In fact, I bet if you polled the voters today, Bonds would be a lock for HOF entry.

 

[outofplace]

Take performance enhancers out of the equation ...

Seventy-five percent of the voters are not going to take performance enhancers out of the equation. And that's why none of the three will get voted in. If the veteran's committee votes them in, then they'll get in. But there is no way 75 percent of the voters will agree to led them in because of performance enhancers. Should they be in? My opinion, no. Your opinion? Yes. I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing if they should be in or not. I just believe they won't get voted in.

You could be right. I'm just saying if you look at the players' actual accomplishments on the field, the case for Bonds is a lot stronger than Palmiero or McGwire.

Bonds was a Hall of Famer when he was still a skinny guy stealing 50-plus bases for the Pirates in the early '90s.

I believe Bonds, McGwire and Palmiero all used performance enhancers. But I also believe Bonds did not start doing that until the late 90s, after he had already built up a hell of a resume for the HOF.

I don't think he gets either home run record without them, but he would definitely have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer without ever taking any performance enhancers.

I think it would have been a different story for McGwire and Palmiero. I remember a skinny McGwire struggling with inconsistency (look at the averages, not just the homers) and injuries early on. And Palmiero was Mark Grace with an outfielder's glove until 1993, his seventh season in the majors.

Take the big power numbers away from all three and only Bonds is still a Hall of Fame caliber player. I think all three get in eventually, but Bonds belongs the first year he is eligible.

 

[Oz]

It's silly to make projections based on McGwire's initial vote. Most of the voters don't see the issue as black-and-white as you apparently see it. In fact, I bet if you polled the voters today, Bonds would be a lock for HOF entry.

Agreed. McGwire posted some terrible numbers with Oakland, and it's not like he ever hit for a great average. Bonds, on the other hand, always hit for a great average, stole bases, hit for power and basically did everything you could have wanted, short of not being a jerk. A much better, more polished resume than McGwire's.